6407C02 SHSpec-26 O/W Modernized and Revised

There are two stages to auditing:

1. Get into comm.

2. Do something for the PC.

It is notorious that few scientologists will inquire deeply into exactly what
someone did. This is because, in order to do something for someone, one must
have a comm line, which is supported or made possible by reality and
affinity. And where a person is too demanding, the affinity tends to break
down. So the auditor doesn't want to break the affinity line. Hence, he
never gets into the second stage of processing, the one after a comm line has
been established, in which the auditor does something for the PC. The PC may
feel miraculously better just from having a comm line established. But the
two stages are like walking up to the bus and driving off. If you don't drive
off, you never arrive anywhere.

Any upset the PC has is actually so delicately balanced that once you
have gotten in communication with the PC, it is easy to do something about the
upset. Batty ideas and doingnesses are particularly easy to get rid of, since
they are based on very slippery logic. You could have the guy's case fall
apart before your eyes, just from your asking, "What are you doing that is
sensible?" and "Why is it sensible?"

Once your comm line and auditing discipline are perfect, so you don't
disturb the comm line, you can forage around amongst his aberrations to great
effect. A comm line is only valuable to the extent that you can use it to
move around in the morass which he calls his ideas. If you used the process
given above, aberration would fall to pieces. Use perfect discipline to keep
in the comm line. Audit well. Get your comm cycle in. Let your cycles of
action be completed. Then you can do something for the PC. The discipline of
auditing is what makes it possible for you to do something for the PC, unlike
other therapies. That is all it is for, in fact. This gets you up to the
door. [Now you have to go through it.] The magic of auditing and the
difficult part, is to get in comm with the PC. Once you have done that, doing
something for the PC is very easy, since his aberrations are so delicately
balanced. If you are not in comm with the PC, he presents himself as accused
by you. He justifies himself. A PC who is in comm with the auditor won't be
trying to justify himself and uphold his status. You can go out of comm with
a PC by not doing anything for him. You lose the R-factor with the person and
you go out of comm.

A process is simply a combination of mental mechanisms which, when
inspected, will pass away. All auditing is subtractive. It consists of
as-ising things on the case. You can over-audit, by trying to get more TA
action from a process when you have gotten it all. You can under-audit by
leaving off before getting all the TA action out. It takes only observation
of the PC. When you have done something for the PC, you will have gotten the
TA action off the process. If you have done something for the PC, TA action
will cease, and it won't stop until then. Don't do something for the PC after
you have already done something for him, on a particular process or in a
particular area. If you go on in the area, you will only restimulate
something else in the PC. If you are clever, you will run a process that
cyclically runs out of TA, and end it there, at the end of a cycle. In R-6,
you develop a sensitivity for when an item is dead, and you will leave it. If you ask for it one more time, you are dead. You will get a tocky needle and an ARC breaky PC. At lower levels, you can get one thing run out, acknowledge it very well, and go on using the same process in a way which makes it a whole new minor cycle within your major process cycle. Auditors who can't do this have to run lots of different processes. But they could get much more out of one process, if they got slick at directing attention. You don't necessarily change the process when the PC has cognited, if it is a general process that can apply to lots of areas. Get the cognition out of one area, then find another area.
You don't have to change the process. You can just change the subject of the
process. If you use this approach, you have to ask yourself all along, "Have
I done something for the PC?" If you notice that the PC's answers are dodgy,
recognize that your comm line isn't established.

Some processes, such as "What could you say to me?/What would you rather
not say to me?" do two things at once: both getting into comm and doing
something for the PC, e.g. by getting off withholds.

All this is a prelude to O/W, because O/W is the greatest comm line
wrecker that an auditor has to deal with. Withhold running is peculiar, in
that it can put in a comm line, but it is avoided for fear of breaking down a
comm line. It can get confusing, when the same process that puts in the comm
line to the PC also does something for the PC. This tends to cause a
confusion in which the difference between putting in a comm line and doing
something for the PC gets lost. O/W is senior to the bank. That doesn't mean
that when the bank is gone, you will still have O/W. It means that O/W keys
out the bank. Handled rightly, it puts in the comm line. But if the auditor
permits the PC to sit there with withholds in the session, instead of
protecting his comm line, as is his intention, he ends up destroying the comm
line by missing the withhold and letting the PC ARC break.

Another thing that makes O/W dicey is that the word, "Withhold" occurs in
the bank. Furthermore, "withhold" is an out-of-ARC process and cannot be run
by itself. "Done", fortunately, does not appear in the bank, so you can run
"Done/Not done". However, the common denominator of the bank is "done"."
Done" is a high order of lock on all forms of reactivity. "Done to" is
another part of the bank, unless the auditor uses a specific name with it,
that is not in the bank. [See p. 595, above, re use of nouns in processes.]

A PTP can be created by a failure to complete a comm cycle. A method of
handling PTP's would be to ask the PC, at start of session, "Are there any
communications you have left incomplete?" The PC would then rattle off
several, and not register further on PTP's. The reason why he hasn't
completed the communication is because of the overts he has against what he
has the PTP with. You never have a PTP with something that you don't have an
overt on. So first a PTP is based on or connected to an incomplete comm
cycle, then to a done. This follows the pattern of what to do in auditing.
[See p. 642, above.] That is the way the bank stacks up. Even a psychosomatic
illness is based on an incomplete communication. In extremis, you can handle
psychosomatic illness as a PTP. You can handle it non-adventurously with,
"What communication to or about the illness haven't you delivered?" Or you can
ask, "What comm haven't you completed to the blumjum?" The more adventurous
cycle is the done. And notice that you have just got the same cycle as that
of auditor to PC: establish comm, then do something. The severity of the
illness has nothing to do with the speed of release of it or the difficulty of
handling it. The "What communication hasn't been completed?" is easy. It
requires nothing of your auditing discipline, but it is the
"lick-and-a-promise". The done takes more skill, knowledge, and
perseverance.

The session patter could go like this:

Auditor: PTP?

PC: Yes.

Auditor: Any comm you haven't completed?

PC: Blah blah.

If the PTP is then gone, then there is no need to continue.

If the PTP is not gone, then get off the PC's overts. There are
seventeen ways to get off series of overts. There are:

Overts in chains.

Recurring withholds.

Recurring overts.

Basic-basic of something.

Etc., etc.

You have to ask the proper questions to get the overts. Suppose the PC keeps
giving you the same (often minor) overt? It is part of a chain. You need to
ask the right question and audit by chain. You must also be prepared to find
no overt at the bottom of the chain.

But Man is basically good, despite his reactive bank. The bank is only
composed to make a man commit overts, which is against his better nature. The
bank is the perfect trap, because having committed the overts, the individual
won't go on communicating.

You do not want to talk to people that you have wronged. You withhold to
prevent further overts. That is the fundamental think of Man, before he goes
so far downscale that he dramatizes obsessively.

"What have you done?" has two branches:

1. What have you done that is socially reprehensible and prevents you
from communicating with others?

2. Just having done something.

Both are valid. But watch out for the PC using the process to look for an
explanation of what has happened to him. This PC will give suppositional
answers, which you don't want. He will invent things he hasn't done to get
rid of the consequences that he is experiencing. He is trying to find a good
enough overt to explain what is occurring in his life. He will often go far
backtrack to find it. Steer this PC back to where he belongs. All you want
is what he is absolutely certain that he has done, so you have to make sure
that he is certain he did the thing. If the auditor is asking A and the PC is
doing B, the communication factor is out, so the auditor won't do something
for the PC. You might ask, "What are you quite positive that you have done?"

O/W is likely to be the biggest area of recovery for the PC, provided the
auditor isn't too tender and will steer the PC. You have to observe when the
PC thinks that it wasn't an overt. If the guy gives you something he did as
an overt but obviously doesn't feel that it was an overt, then you must ask,
"Why wasn't this an overt?", and get itsa. Then you might ask, "Was this
really an overt, after all?" At this point, you might get the glee of
insanity. Then you might get a long worry about this, with TA action.
Eventually, he will realize that it was an overt. Meanwhile, you are raising
the cause level of the PC. You could go into "done" in numerous other
categories. However, you may fail, in trying to direct somebody in these
fields.